Ex Parte Kusnezow et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 20, 201613032687 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/032,687 02/23/2011 95683 7590 05/24/2016 Ley dig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd, (Frankfurt office) Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900 180 North Stetson Avenue Chicago, IL 60601-6731 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gennadij Kusnezow UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 812519 7418 EXAMINER HAGAN, SEAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2828 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): chgpatent@leydig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GENNADIJ KUSNEZOW and ANDREAS BOENKE Appeal2014-006341 Application 13/032,687 Technology Center 2800 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-006341 Application 13/032,687 STATE~vfENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1 and 3-20. Claim 2 is canceled. We have jurisdiction over the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a laser arrangement. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A laser arrangement of a longitudinally diode-pumped solid state laser, the laser arrangement comprising; a folded optical resonator including a folding element that is highly reflective for a fundamental wavelength of the laser arrangement so as to provide two resonator branches extending from the folding element and diverging in a V configuration, the folding element including a spherical form; at least one active medium including an active volume associated with each resonator branch that extends from the folding element; and an optical pump imaging system configured to unidirectionally and independently pump each of the two diverging resonator branches by a common objective lens through the folding element which is transparent for the pump wavelength. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Pocholle Nighan Eda Yin Rapoport Hendriks us 5,077,750 us 5,638,397 US 6, 178,035 B 1 US 6,366,596B1 US 2005/0129083 Al US 2006/0262433 Al 2 Dec. 31, 1991 June 10, 1997 Jan.23,2001 Apr. 2, 2002 June 16, 2005 Nov. 23, 2006 Appeal2014-006341 Application 13/032,687 Peng US 7,796,671 B2 REJECTIONS 1 The Examiner made the following rejections: Sept. 14, 2010 Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nighan, Peng, and Eda. Final Act. 5-10. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nighan, Peng, Eda, and Rapoport. Final Act. 10. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nighan, Peng, Eda and Hendriks. Final Act. 10-11. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Nighan, Peng, Eda, and Pocholle. Final Act. 11-12. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Nighan, Peng, Eda, and Yin. Final Act. 12. APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS 1. "None of the cited references disclose or suggest unidirectionally and independently pumping each of two diverging resonator branches through a folding element." App. Br. 4, 5---6. 2. "There would have been no reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited references to include unidirectionally and 1 Appellants argue the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3-20. (Merely restating with respect to a second claim an argument, previously presented with respect to a first claim, is not an argument for separate patentability of the two claims.) Therefore, based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1 and 3-20 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal2014-006341 Application 13/032,687 independently pumping diverging resonator branches through a folding element." App. Br. 5, 6-8. 3. "There would have been no reason to modify a combination of the cited references to include a folding element inc 1 uding a spherical form." App. Br. 5, 8-9. ISSUES ON APPEAL Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 3-15) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-5), the issues presented on appeal are: 1. Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Nighan, Peng, and Eda teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of "an optical pump imaging system configured to unidirectionally and independently pump each of the two diverging resonator branches by a common objective lens through the folding element" as required by claim 1. 2. Whether the Examiner erred in concluding the claimed invention would have been obvious based on the combination ofNighan, Peng, Eda and official notice. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-12) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-8) and concur with the 4 Appeal2014-006341 Application 13/032,687 conclusions reached by the Examiner. \Ve highlight the following for emphasis. In support of contention 1, Appellants argue none of the references teaches or suggests pumping two diverging resonator branches through the same folding element as required by claim 1. App. Br. 5---6. This argument is unpersuasive because, as found by the Examiner, the combination of Nighan, Peng, and Eda teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5-6, Ans. 2-3, see also In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).2 The Examiner finds, and we agree: Figure 6 ofNighan ... teaches unidirectionally pumping one of two diverging resonator branches through a folding mirror with pump laser 44 pumping laser 72 whereas Peng ... teaches in Figure 2 that more than one branch may include an active medium that is unidirectionally pumped through a folding element. ... Eda[ ... ] teaches in Figure 34 a particular pumping arrangement for providing pump light from laser diodes 1 to different paths in solid state laser medium 10 at designated entry points 12 through a single arrangement of optical elements 2 and 3. Ans. 2-3. The Examiner further finds: [T]he use of ... [Eda's] pumping scheme [using a common objective lens] may be implemented within a device according to the combined teachings ofNighan and Peng where a laser medium in need of pumping exists along a branch provided in like manner to branch L2 of Figure 6 of Nighan by providing a pumping arrangement capable of providing pump light to both branch Ll and branch L2 from different pump lasers through a single optical arrangement. 2 Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. 5 Appeal2014-006341 Application 13/032,687 Ans. 3. Therefore, contrary to Appellants' argument, the combination of Nighan, Peng, and Eda teaches or suggests the disputed limitation, and Appellants' contention 1 is unpersuasive of Examiner error. In connection with contention 2, Appellants argue "nothing in Nighan, Peng or Eda would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art to pump two active volumes on different branches through the same folding element." App. Br. 7. Instead, according to Appellants, [I]f a person of ordinary skill in the art wished to achieve greater gain capacity, as suggested by the Office, the person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Nighan in the manner which is actually shown in Peng [and] use respective folding mirrors to pump any additional laser crystals added to the resonator, as shown in Fig. 2 of Peng. The person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had any reason to pump a second laser crystal through the same folding mirror. App. Br. 7. Appellants additionally argue the Examiner's rationale for modifying the combination ofNighan and Peng to use a single, common folding element as taught or suggested by Eda "is not well reasoned." App. Br. 5. The Examiner responds by finding: [W]hile Figure 2 of Peng and Figure 9 ofNighan show only one pump laser per folding mirror, there is no identified significance to such a configuration indicative that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it necessary to include additional folding mirrors for the soul [sic.] purpose of including additional pumping elements. Ans. 4. Based on the evidence of the record, we conclude the Examiner did not err in combining the teachings ofNighan and Peng with that of Eda to arrive at the claimed invention. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings 6 Appeal2014-006341 Application 13/032,687 sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)), Final Act. 5---6. Appellants' contention that one skilled in the art would have combined the prior art to arrive at an alternative embodiment including two folding elements rather than the claimed folding element and common object lens is based on mere attorney argument rather than evidence. 3 Furthermore, the possibility of an alternative combination does not ipso facto render the applied combination nonobvious. In contrast, Appellants fail to provide persuasive evidence or explanation showing the Examiner's asserted combination is anything other than the mere substitution of one element (a single folding element) for another known in the field (separate folding elements) and a combination of familiar elements yielding no more than predictable results. See KSR at 416-17. Accordingly, Appellants' contention 2 is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Appellants' contention 3 is unpersuasive of Examiner error for reasons similar to those discussed in connection with contention 2 and because, as found by the Examiner, Appellants have failed to properly traverse the Examiner's findings based on Official Notice. MPEP § 2144.03(C) requires, "To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art." See 37 C.F.R. § 11 l(b ); see also In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 713 (CCPA 1943) ("[I]n the absence of 3 Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 7 Appeal2014-006341 Application 13/032,687 any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention."). Appellants' challenge to the use of a folding element with a spherical form fails to state why the noticed fact is not well-known. Furthermore, contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 6, Ans. 6. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) together with the rejections of dependent claims 3-20, which are not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation